Was Einstein Wrong ?

Was Einstein Wrong ?

To begin with, allow me to present a few documentaries made by other scientists that question the standard model of physics. Hopefully you’ll find these videos to be entertaining and enlightening. Most of them are understandable to the lay person.

This paper is being continually updated with revisions and new findings.

In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.

Introduction

It is often claimed that Einstein’s theories of relativity have withstood every test thrown at them. This article attempts to challenge that claim by presenting a list of predictive failures, falsifying observations, and alternative explanations that better agree with the general rule of Occam’s razor. In science, it is generally accepted that the theory with the least amount of hypothetical postulates is superior to one with more. It was primarily on this basis that Einstein’s version of relativity won out over Lorentz’s, as Einstein was able to demonstrate a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. However, as time has progressed, the amount of hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories has grown exponentially.

Results

• The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. LIGO (on the fourth science run

[S4]) and GEO600 together did not detect any gravitational waves.[3] To date, LIGO’s fifth science run [S5], which had all three interferometers running continuously in triple-coincidence for an entire year, has not yielded any gravitational wave candidates.[4] These non-detections directly refute previous theory and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.[5]

• The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying[6], nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment.[7] This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. It’s often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Claiming that 95% of the universe is composed of undetectable matter and energy is an extraordinary claim. To-date, no solid laboratory based proof of dark matter or dark energy has been presented.

• Observed locations of dwarf galaxies undermine cold dark matter models of the universe. Marcel Pawlowski, a postdoctoral researcher in the astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University, is quoted as saying, “The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000.” [115][116]

• A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation.[8][9] This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Article on the subject here.

• The cepheid mass discrepancy problem has no solution in the standard model of stars. Recent findings by the ESO confirm that the standard model of stellar evolution is wrong.[10][11]

• Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team highlights problems created by the effects of “contact potential difference” induced error on the gyros.[1] The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. [2]

Of the 4 gyroscopes (centering on the frame-dragging effect) 3 of them (#1,#2, and #3) show errors that admit values compatible with predictions closer to 0 mas/yr than to the -39 mas/yr prediction. One of them (#2) is compatible with a null result. Gyroscope #4 is compatible with -60.6 mas/yr . And these are the numbers achieved after more than 5 years of fitting the raw results to something tolerable.

A 2008 NASA review of the GPB project gave it a failing grade and made the point that:

“the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity ‘is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community’.”

The geodetic effect can be explained within a steady state Lorentz relativity. The failure of the experiment to definitively confirm the Lense-Thirring effect calls General Relativity into question.

• The WMAP has shown the existence of large scale cold and hot spots in the supposed “cosmic background” from the big bang.[12] These cold and hot spots were not predicted and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.[13] Further, as the ACG so eloquently states:

“It seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models.”[14]

If the universe is expanding, the surface brightness (apparent luminosity divided by apparent surface area) of distant galaxies will be much less than that of nearby ones. But if it is not expanding, the surface brightness will be the same. It turns out that the surface brightness is, in fact, the same. The conventional, Big Bang, explanation of this observation is that the distant galaxies have extremely high intrinsic surface brightness but with cosmological dimming, by coincidence, they appear to have the same surface brightness as nearby ones. One of the big problems with this explanation is that the implied intrinsic surface brightness is much larger than that observed for any nearby galaxies and may be physically impossible.[13][15]

• “Magnetic reconnection,” as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the auroras, violates conservation laws of physics. MHD theory is incapable of accounting for the dynamics of double layers and other known properties of astrophysical plasma that can only be accounted for by circuit theory. A paper by Don Scott demonstrates this.[16] This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar hereand Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Plasma and in this paper here.[17][18][19] Alfven makes the point that:

As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.[20]

The second concern is that the construct of moving field lines is sometimes confused with the concept of moving flux tubes. A flux tube can be thought of as an ensemble of field lines that are identified by their low energy plasma, which moves at the E×B/B2 velocity. Some researchers have asserted that as the plasma moves from region A to region B at this velocity, the field lines that were at A are later at B, so the magnetic field lines moved together with the plasma. This conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First, it is meaningless to assert that a field line that was at A is now at B, because there is no way to identify or distinguish one magnetic field line from another. Second, the concept of moving magnetic field lines is reasonable if it is used only for visualizing the temporal evolution of the magnetic field, and then, only if equation (2) is satisfied. This point is emphasized by the fact that there are an infinite number of field line velocities that produce the correct temporal evolution of the field when equation (2) is satisfied [Vasyliunas, 1972].[17]

The integration of two plasma parcels across space and time violates the rule Fälthammar has so eloquently described for us, which is how the MHD theory describes a reconnection event.

All observations of “magnetic reconnection” can be explained very simply using standard circuit theory in the form of an exploding double layer.[20][21] Alfven provides us with the answers yet again:

A simple mechanism of explosion is the following. The double layer can be considered as a double diode, limited by a slab of plasma on the cathode side and another slab on the anode side. Electrons starting from the cathode get accelerated in the diode and impinge upon the anode slab with a considerable momentum which they transfer to the plasma. Similarly, accelerated ions transfer momentum to the cathode slab. The result is that the anode and cathode plasma columns are pushed away from each other. When the distance between the electrodes in the diodes becomes larger the drop in voltage increases. This run-away phenomenon leads to an explosion…

Carlqvist ( 1969, 1982a,c) finds that in a relativistic double layer the distribution of charges Zn +(x) and n_(x) can be divided into three regions: two density spikes near the electrodes and one intermediate region with almost constant charge density. The particles are mainly accelerated in the spikes; whereas, they move with almost constant velocity in the intermediate region. Examples are given of possible galactic DL voltage differences of 10 _2 V. This means that by a straightforward extrapolation of what we know from our cosmic neighborhood, we can derive acceleration mechanisms which brings us up in the energy region of cosmic radiation.[20]

See this paper and these papers for more information on the types of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the double layer mechanism.[22][23] from pdf page 97, document page 91:

“It should be noted that before the ignition of BPD, the double layer becomes unstable, and large amplitude potential fluctuations are observed. Figure 9a shows the fluctuations in the local electric field as measured by the diagnostic electron beam. The electric field fluctuates at a frequency of approximately 1 kHz.”[23]

• There are no such things as “frozen in magnetic fields in plasma.” Such a plasma is purely abstract formalism and cannot be demonstrated in a lab. A simple discharge tube experiment proves that plasma is not an ideal conductor (a superconductor with zero-valued resistance). Voltage in a real plasma never drops to zero and therefore resistance never drops to zero, ergo plasma is not an ideal conductor. Hence, any theory that relies on plasma being regarded as an ideal conductor having “frozen in” magnetic fields is in error. This is also covered in the above point, but I feel it needs to be highlighted in a separate point. The use of MHD models to describe entire systems of plasma interaction is a classic example of “reification.” It is interesting to note that the man who won the Nobel prize for creating MHD theory (Alfven) flatly disagrees with its use in modeling astrophysical phenomena. Because plasma is quasi-neutral it MUST obey Kirchhoff’s circuit laws. Any complete theory of a plasma system must close the circuit, even if the location of the input and output currents are unknown to us at this time.

As Don Scott says:

Laboratory measurements demonstrate that a nonzero-valued electric field in the direction of the current (E parallel > 0) is required to produce a nonzero current density within any plasma no matter what mode of operation the plasma is in. Negative-slope regions of the volt-ampere characteristic (negative dynamic resistance) of a plasma column reveal the cause of the filamentary properties of plasma, but all static resistance values are measured to be > 0.

Thus, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them.[16]

• Standard galaxy formation models require the use of black holes and dark matter to achieve approximate model fit to observation. These hypothetical entities have never been proven to exist.[6][7] Los Alamos Plasma Physicist Anthony Peratt has demonstrated super-computer formulations of plasma using standard classical physics to produce a galaxy formation model that does not require any hypothetical entities. His model agrees with observations.[24] Thornhill has followed suit with a paper that equates the evolution of barred spirals to a DPF.[25]

• The M87 galactic jet has been observed to eject matter at speeds faster than the speed of light. Theories proposing orientation as a solution for this do not agree well with observation. Peratt has shown how charged plasma can account for all observations of the M87 galactic jet without the need to invoke ‘black holes’. Indeed, Peratt’s theory, which is based on Alfven’s work, can account for the double jets we observe in some AGNs – which I believe remains unexplained in the standard model. Double radio sources were predicted by Alfven before their discovery. Paper showing this to be true can be found here. Further supporting evidence on the role of particle beams in space plasmas and their effects can be found here.[26][27][28][29]

• Abell 3376 emits massive amounts of x-rays in a halo estimated thermally to be at over 60 million degrees Kelvin. There are no plausible explanations for this outrageous amount of heat and xray emission that encompasses the entire galaxy cluster using standard shock and gravity theory. The so-called shock “injection problem” in proposed solutions to these observations is ignored. Collisional heating of neutral gas can not generate 60 million degree temperatures. Mechanisms for the creation and maintenance of the required magnetic fields and the associated plasma have not been addressed. The Sun doesn’t even get that hot. That’s over 20 times hotter than the hottest point of the solar corona and over 10,000 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. The electric model of galaxy formation offers an obvious solution to this problem as well as the unaccounted for magnetic fields.[30][31][32]

• Galaxies have been observed to be moving in dark flows. This observation stands in contradiction to the standard model of galaxy and universe formation. Such movement can be well accounted for in an electric model.[33][34]

• Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations is incorrect. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild’s original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild’s original paper in English can be found here. Hilbert’s solution to the field equations is erroneous. Crothers undertook a long dialog with a Dr. Christian Corda, Editor-in-Chief of The Open Astronomy Journal, who freely admits that there is no such thing as black holes, but then refuses publication of Crothers’ papers based on ideological disagreements.It is interesting to note that black hole “non-believers” include Einstein, yet his name is continually put forth as a backer of this theory. Out of respect for his position, the use of Einstein’s name in conjunction with these objects should cease immediately.[35][36][37][38][39][40]

• All observational evidence of the Sun refutes the notion that the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud that is powered by a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. The surface of the Sun is only observed to reach around 6000 degrees, while the corona high above it can get into the millions of degrees. Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. These observations directly refute the notion that heat energy is being released from the core of the Sun. Other observed anomalies that refute the notion the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud: neutrino deficiency, neutrino variability, differential rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, sun spots, the sun spot penumbra, even magnetic field, etc… the list goes on. Alternative solar models by Alfven, Scott, and Juergens are proposed in several reviewed papers here that can account for these problems, as well as rebuttals to arguments against them.[41][42][43][18][44][45][46]

• Recent research has discovered that the convective flows in the Sun, which supposedly give rise to the Sun’s magnetic fields, move 100 times slower than the standard model of stars predicts. This leaves no compelling theory to explain the generation of magnetic fields under the standard model. This issue is resolved in an electric model of stars.[114]

• Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light.

Given the ridiculous assumption of a meager 10 mile radius, the outer edge of a pulsar rotating at 1122 hz would be traveling at .37 c (almost half the speed of light). A 25 mile radius would mean the outer edge would be traveling at .9 c. Such compact bodies with such high rotation rates are utterly preposterous. The scientific community is telling the public that an object the size of an asteroid is spinning around at near light speed emitting a beam of energy detectable across galactic distances. THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS! Pulsar XTE J1739-285 must be made entirely of neutrons if its spin rates are to be believed.

Previous theory held that ~700 hz was the maximum attainable spin rate for a pulsar. Healy and Peratt offer a far simpler explanation that doesn’t violate any laws of physics. Such an explanation can also account for Jupiter’s millisecond radio pulses.[47][48][49][50][51]

• Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. The explanation of these objects by the standard model is poor. If the star is too small to gravitationally ignite a fusion reaction, it stands to reason they shouldn’t be cooling at all. They should be simple gas giants. Accretion and fragmentation models are blatantly falsified by observations of our own solar system and by models of neutral dust acting in the vacuum of space. However, they are well explained and predicted by the electric star hypothesis, as presented in the previous point.[52][53][54][55][44]

• Stars located at the center of the galaxy do not agree with the standard model of galaxy star formation. They are too young by the standard model of measuring a star’s age to have formed at the locations observed. Theories that attempt to account for this are orders of magnitude improbable. One NASA press release even goes so far as to say that explanations of these out-of-place young stars “seem like science fiction.” The electric model of stars taken in conjunction with the electric model of galaxy formation resolves this problem.[56][57][24][58]

• All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface.[59][60][61][62][63] The so-called “jets” of comets are observed to be highly collimated.[63] The dust of comets is observed to be extremely fine.[60] Samples of comet dust show particles that have undergone intense heating.[64] The impact excavation of Tempel1 showed H2O spectra far below that required by the “dirty snowball model”.[60] These observations refute the standard theory of comets being a dirty snowball ejecting sub-surface water ice and dust via sublimation. No in situ experiment has ever demonstrated how photodissociation can occur at the rates assumed by cometary models.

Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamentary tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were predicted by cosmologists that took electric forces into account. Supporting articles from a wide range of sources can be found here.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]

• All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections, some of which actually “disconnected” the tails of comets from the nucleus. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by electric cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by electric cosmology’s view of comets.[74][75]

Further, magnetic reconnection is invoked to explain tail “disconnection” events and other obviously electrical phenomena observed in comets. As was demonstrated in a previous point, magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws in physics and is nothing more than a blatant reification of MHD simulations.

• Saturn’s rings are observed to emit radio waves. This is not well explained at all by gravitational models of ring formation. Further, to quote the KTH paper on Saturn’s rings:

We present several independent in-situ measurements, which provide evidence that charged dust in the E-ring interacts collectively with the dense surrounding plasma disk of Saturn, i.e., form a system of dust-plasma interaction.[55]

Such interaction was well predicted by Alfven who died long before Cassini took Langmuir probe measurements of the rings. Alfven also managed to predict Uranus’s ring before its discovery.[55][78]

Further, Peratt has demonstrated in the laboratory how electron beam vortices can account for Saturn’s hexagon. This of course goes hand in hand with Birkeland’s, and later Alfven’s, theories of how and why auroras are formed.[79][80]

• Io’s volcanoes are observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Also the volcanoes plumes exhibit filamentation and exhibit heat far in excess of standard predictions. Peratt and Dessler demonstrated how electric forces could account for Io’s oddities.[81] Furthermore, “[the] Galileo [spacecraft] detected electrical currents flowing along magnetic field lines above two areas of volcanic activity on Io.”[82]

• Quasars with low red shift have been proven to be related to their host galaxy. This follows Halton Arp’sejection model of quasar formation. Paper proving quasars relate to their host galaxies red shifts, with the odds of correlation 1.5 in a million, can be found here. Further, high and low red shift objects are observed to be interacting with each other. The odds of quasar/galaxy quartet NGC 7603 being a random chance alignment are on the order of billions to one. However, NGC 7603 does not stand alone; dozens of other interacting objects have been observed.[83][84][85][86][87]

• Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in the published papers listed here. This means the Earth must be at the center of the universe in order for the Big Bang model to be true. Quantization is shown to be related to the harmonic 0.062 in quasar and galactic red shift here. This relationship is also demonstrated in Arp’s paper above.[83] This harmonic finding has never been refuted to my knowledge. Arp notes that quantization becomes evident when a quasar cluster’s red shift is transformed into the rest frame of the galaxy of origin. [88][89]

• Quasars brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies. This refutes the notion of “expanding space” and the big bang. High red shift quasars can be well accounted for with known properties of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space. Several papers in support of this here.[90]

• Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREIL effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift caused by “expanding space.”[91]

• Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed tochange in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous! The notion that gravitational micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations observed over time. Recent papers on lensing read like a science fiction novel with a nearly infinite number of hypothetical postulates propping up the theory.[92][93][94][95]

In conjunction with this argument:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses.

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only to face conflicting data from another model, and so forth – of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.[96]

Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that’s left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo. Also on the galactic scale, the Abell 3376 galaxy cluster exhibits a ring system that is not due to “gravitational lensing” as do numerous other galaxies and galaxy clusters such as Hoag’s object. Ring formations are a common occurrence in space, the majority of which are totally unrelated to any proposed “lensing.”[97][30][98]

Further, given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed. Magneto-optical effects such as self-focusing have not been thoroughly reviewed as a possible cause of the observed visual distortions around the Sun. Given the electric model, it seems such effects could possibly account for the observed refraction of light.[99]

• Physicist Eric Lerner has demonstrated that element abundance predicted by big bang models does not fit with observations and has presented a model of element creation that well agrees with observation based on Alfven’s work. Rebuttal to arguments against his findings published here.[100][101][102][103]

• Gravity is not constant. Every attempt to measure gravity has resulted in changes over time. No method of measuring gravity has ever proven gravity to be constant as is mandated by the general theory of relativity. Also, it has been demonstrated that gravity propagates at a speed faster than that of light if one assumes gravity propagates outward from the Sun,[104] which is forbidden by Special Relativity. Newton’s equations assume gravity propagates at an infinite speed, and it is Newton’s equations (not Einstein’s) NASA uses to calculate orbits. This is direct falsifying observational evidence that Einstein’s version of gravity is wrong. Attempts to measure gravity have resulted in variations by as much as .7%.[105] Atom interferometry shows variations outside of acceptable limits. Further, one has to question the use of atoms to measure gravitational forces. Common sense tells us the most accurate measurement would be by an object that is strongly effected by it.[106]

• GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly “proves” Einstein’s version of relativity can be accounted for better using steady state models of the universe. Lorentz’s model can well account for observations in a steady state universe. Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays out the evidence here. An alternative theory based on Lorentz’s work that accounts for why the MM experiment showed a null result, as well as all other aberrations, can be found here. Similarly, physicist Randal Mills has demonstrated predictive success with a model solely based on classical physics. The simplicity of these models and accuracy of their predictions merits further review. The models presented are predicated on closed form classical physics, which is the only type of model that is fundamentally tied to reality. [107][108][109]

• Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs. David Esker has put together a site detailing many of the findings. Esker seems to think atmospheric pressure can account for this, but we all know that’s bunk. There is only one thing that makes sense, and that’s a lower gravity field. Some of the highlights include:

the largest dinosaurs wouldn’t have been able to lift their heads due to the heart not being strong enough to pump blood up to the head.

the largest dinosaurs’ bones would have crumbled under the stress of their weight.

This gravity variation can only be accounted for with an electric theory of gravity.[110][111]

• The “Le Grand K ” (otherwise known as the international prototype kilogram) is losing mass, which violates Einstein’s relativity.

• The double star “W13″ weighs “40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. Dr. Simon Clark of the ESO makes a rather ridiculous claim to explain away this discrepancy which has no rational explanation within Einsteinian relativity:

So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation Dr Clark can think of is that the star must have somehow shed nine-tenths of its mass before it exploded as a supernova. Unfortunately, that does not make astrophysical sense.

• The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?

• The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his “clock” (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.

• Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth’s equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth’s shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.

• Based on Relativity and the failed 1887 experiment by Michelson-Morley to measure the aether, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

• Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

Conclusion

After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy’s epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.

At this point it is almost impossible for even a professional cosmologist to name all of the hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories. Occam’s Razor demands we follow the theory with the least amount of unnecessary entities. While the standard model may be able to formulate responses to the problems presented, it seems that electric cosmology offers a solution to all of the problems by simply adding ONE postulate to the universe – that current flows in space plasmas. Given the utter simplicity of this postulate and the overwhelming evidence in support of it, Occam’s Razor demands it be given full attention.Modern cosmology is engaging in what can broadly be categorized as scientific fraud. Nearly every explanation of astrophysical phenomena involves the use of frozen-in fields, an impossibility in any real plasma. Nearly every explanation involves the use of some totally unproven, unfounded, and baseless hypothetical form of matter or energy, be it dark energy, dark matter, or fictional black holes that blatantly violate Einsteinian relativity. Every attempt to prove the existence of these hypothetical entities has resulted in failure.Because a steady state universe, as postulated by Lorentz, does not require unification and complies with Maxwell’s equations (which themselves assume an infinite universe and universal speed), this also resolves the long standing problem of unifying Einstein’s theories.And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made.Professor Donald Scott lays out the case for electric cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center’s Engineering Colloquia in this video.If you’re interested in why scientists ignore all of the above findings, here’s a sociological research paper on the mindsets of cosmologists.